From fc7bdc90249b216051d06496577c306327f2e3f5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: SeongJae Park Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 15:55:32 -0700 Subject: locking/Documentation: Fix incorrect example code - Remove a stale line of code - Fix the condition of the READ_ONCE() example Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Acked-by: Alan Stern Cc: Andrew Morton Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Will Deacon Cc: akiyks@gmail.com Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com Cc: dhowells@redhat.com Cc: j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: luc.maranget@inria.fr Cc: npiggin@gmail.com Cc: parri.andrea@gmail.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1526338533-6044-7-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'Documentation/core-api') diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst b/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst index fce9291..4ea4af7 100644 --- a/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst +++ b/Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst @@ -111,7 +111,6 @@ If the compiler can prove that do_something() does not store to the variable a, then the compiler is within its rights transforming this to the following:: - tmp = a; if (a > 0) for (;;) do_something(); @@ -119,7 +118,7 @@ the following:: If you don't want the compiler to do this (and you probably don't), then you should use something like the following:: - while (READ_ONCE(a) < 0) + while (READ_ONCE(a) > 0) do_something(); Alternatively, you could place a barrier() call in the loop. -- cgit v1.1